2.2 MODELOS DE EDUCACIÓN INTERCULTURAL

Master gardeners were asked to rate the reasons motivating their ‘Choice of Source of Garden Plants and Supplies’ On a Likert scale of 1 to 5, 1 being ‘Not Important and 5 being Most Important’. Each EMG was requested to rate ALL the choices. The group means and variances for these ratings are shown on Table 7.

Table 7. Rating Means and Variances - Reasons for Choosing Source of Plants and Supplies

Price Word Experience Convenience Promotion Other

Mean 3.459 3.247 4.411 3.564 2.214 3.177

Variance 1.050 1.549 0.586 1.130 1.166 2.653

Observations 403 393 409 404 392 293

*Ratings range from 1= ‘Not Important’ to 5 = ‘Very Important’

‘Promotion’ received the lowest rating (Mean =2.2/5) and also had the second lowest number of EMGs rating in (N=392). At the other end of the spectrum,

‘Experience’ was rated by the largest group of EMGs (N=409) and had the highest group mean at 4.4/5, and smallest variance, at 0.586. This results suggests that EMGs value ‘Experience’ above all the other options when choosing where to buy plants and garden supplies. The t-test results for the difference between group means are shown in Table 8. The t-test results as indicated by the level of correlation between the group means is overall weak with values ranging between ± 0.1- and 0.3. As discussed in the Methods Chapter, EMGs were NOT asked to rate ‘Quality’ as a factor for their choices. Studies show ‘Quality’ is a challenging factor to measure and that it is, among other things often correlated with ‘Price’ (Scitovszky, 1945; Dodds et al., 1991).

62

Table 8. Correlation Matrix t-test of Mean Differences between Reasons for Choosing Where to Buy

Reasons Price Convenience Experience

Word-of-

mouth Promotion Other

Price 1 Convenience 0.338 1 Experience 0.043* 0.094* 1 Word-of-mouth 0.031* 0.054* 0.142* 1 Promotion 0.231* 0.203* -0.059* 0.259* 1 Other -0.079* -0.159* 0.044* 0.047 0.074* 1 *statistically significant at p≤ 0.05

Question 8 on the Survey was open-ended and gave the EMGs an opportunity to state any other reasons they had for choosing where to buy garden plants and supplies. We analyzed these data to determine the number who specifically cited ‘Quality’ and these results are shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Quality as a Factor for Choosing where to Buy Plants and Supplies Total EMG Respondents Number Stating ‘Quality’ Percentage of Total EMG Respondents 2011 186 25 13.44% 2012 71 7 9.86% 2013 158 15 9.00% Total 415 47 11.33%

These results show that over the three years, an average of 47 (11%) of the EMGs in the study stated ‘Quality’ was an important factor in their decision of ‘Where to buy garden plants and supplies’. This percentage is surprisingly low, given the general

63

assumption that most shoppers seek quality products and/or places to buy. In their open- ended responses, EMGs also mentioned other attributes that could be considered to be related to quality, namely, ‘Organic’ and ‘Local’. While most did not distinguishing whether these factors described the store or its products (plants and gardening supplies), the finding is insightful.

Over the three-year period, 76 (18.3%) EMGs stated ‘Local’ was important. This was higher than the number who specifically stated ‘Quality’ as being important 47 (11%). The number stating ‘Organic’ as being important at 41 (9.6%) was also higher than those stating ‘Quality’. In some cases, an EMG indicated two of these attributes (for example, ‘Quality’ and ‘Local’) and in a few cases all three attributes were stated as being important. This result strongly suggest there is ambiguity concept of ‘Quality’ when EMGs choose where to buy inputs and plants. However, being ‘Local’ and ‘Organic’ are clearly important to some Vermont EMGs.

4.2.3. Multivariate Analysis - Impact of Demographics on Vermont EMGs’ Reasons for Gardening

In order to determine if socio-demographic factors affect the reasons that motivate EMGs to garden, we estimated linear regression models one for each of the reasons cited as being important in the decision to garden. The independent variables for each of the models were Age, Education, and Gender of Gardening Decision-maker and annual Household Income. The results for the five regression models are shown in Table 10.

64

Table 10. Regression Models- Impact of socio-Demographics on Reasons for Having a Garden

The regression results indicate that none of the five models have a strong explanatory power as indicated by the R2 and adjusted R2 which, in all models, has a value of 0.1 or less, meaning that socio-demographic factors explain less than 10% of the variation in the weight gardeners place on any of the factors that drive their decision to garden. This suggests that there are other reasons not captured in these models that can explain the variation in ratings.

Despite the low explanatory power of the model (low R2) some interesting findings may be gleaned from the signs of the coefficients in the models. For example, ‘Age’ of the Gardening Decision-Maker has a positive impact on the ratings for ‘Taste of Homegrown/Fresh’ and ‘Fun and Relaxation/Hobby.’ This suggests that the older the EMG, the more likely they are to be motivated to have a garden in order to have a ‘Taste of Homegrown/Fresh’ produce or ‘Fun/Relaxation/Hobby.’ Conversely, ‘Age’ is

negatively associated with ratings for ‘Save Money’, ‘Food Safety Concerns’ and ‘Environmental Concerns’ suggesting that the older the EMG, the less likely they are to

Dependent Variables

Save Money Taste of Homegrown Food Safety Concerns Environmental Fun/Relaxation Independent Variables

Intercept 4.191 4.087 4.645 4.5 4.469

Age of Gardening Decision-Maker -0.007 0.007*** -0.001 -0.002 0.003

Education -0.002 0.028 -0.089** -0.033 -0.004

Household Income 0.000*** 0 0.000** 0 0

Gender of Gardening Decision-Maker 0.11 0.108** 0.164* 0.052** 0.051

R2 0.107 0.051 0.042 0.015 0.007

Adjusted R2 0.096 0.04 0.032 0.004 -0.003

F- Statistic 0 0.001 0.004 0.254 0.625

Regression models were estimated for ratings values ranging from 1-5, where 1= ‘least important’, and 5 = ‘most important’ *Significant at p≤ 0.10

**Significant at p≤ 0.05 ***Significant at p≤ 0.01

65

be motivated to garden out of ‘Food Safety’ or ‘Environmental Concerns.’ ‘Household income’ also has a positive impact on the motivation to “Save Money” and ‘Food Safety Concerns.’

4.2.4 Multivariate Analysis - Impact of Socio-Demographics on Choice of Source for Garden Plants and Supplies

Regression analysis of the impact of demographic factors on the choice where to buy plants and supplies are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11. Impact of Demographics on Preference for Source of Plants and Gardening Supplies Local Garden Centers/Supply Stores Large Retail Stores Grocery Stores Other Sources Observations N= 364 N=356 N=357 N=360 Independent Variables Intercept 4.16 1.192 2.161 3.23

Age of Gardening Decision-

Maker 0.003 -0.006 -0.014 -0.02 Education -0.021 -0.021 0.039 0.022 Household Income 0 0.000*** 0 0 Gender of Gardening Decision-Maker -0.001 -0.134 0 0.141 R2 0.004 0.037 0.032 0.027 Adjusted R2 -0.007 0.026 0.021 0.016 F- Statistic 0.394 3.343 2.899 2.487 ***Significant at p≤ 0.01

66

Based on the overall regression models’ total variance measures, R2, we can conclude that demographic characteristics explain only a very small percentage, less than 4 percent of the variation in ratings for why EMGs choose to buy plants and supplies at different stores.

Studies show that attitudinal or psycho-sociological variables including norms, beliefs and values for example those related to trust and perceived environmental impacts, can affect consumer behavior (Stern, 2000; Simha et al., 2017). These factors might better explain the variability in the EMG choices and preferences. In the univariate analysis section, this study shows that variables such as ‘Local’ and ‘Organic’ are

important to some Vermont EMGs. The regression models suggest that these values and psychological factors might better explain the shopping patterns and decision drivers for Vermont EMGs suggesting the need for further research.

67